You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ok, I give you that, that terrorism got its mainstay usage after the French Revolution, when the government incited terrorism on its people. McCarthyism can be place neatly into that definition.

Unfortunately, that sort of usage has since changed dramatically.

Somehow, people and groups were usually either known as "criminally" [insert verb] or groups that were called radicals.

Well the tactics of the Irish land league and other forces of that kind predated that and they could be described as terrorists in the truest sense, they aimed to use fear, I'm not condemning that even knowing the conditions of the time.

There's examples which preceed that too, any nation that's used "shock and awe" back to the time of "greek fire" could be said to have used terror as a tactic or measure.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

There's more than a little truth to that. Although is it just a matter of shame? I mean its shameful if they've been snooping on people for not reason, wasteful too but is it harmful to the efforts to keep the public safe from people plotting murder and mayhem?

Unauthorized snooping on people harms anti-terrorism and other law enforcement/security efforts by alienating the public, and losing their trust and cooperation. Moreover, it creates a new problem: law-abiding people become vulnerable to having the illegally obtained information used against them for political purposes or even private vendettas. I believe I already referenced this sort of thing during the McCarthy era. More lives were destroyed during that time by our government than by supposed communists.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Well the tactics of the Irish land league and other forces of that kind predated that and they could be described as terrorists in the truest sense, they aimed to use fear, I'm not condemning that even knowing the conditions of the time.

There's examples which preceed that too, any nation that's used "shock and awe" back to the time of "greek fire" could be said to have used terror as a tactic or measure.

What I am saying is that either they did not use the specific word "terrorism" or that they didn't use it enough for it to stay. The lexical usage (or even the common usage) of the word is important here. Before 9/11, we didn't really use the word "terrorism" for the end all be all word for causing fear.

For there to have been harm done by revealing the existence of large, ongoing programs that track the rise and fall of terroristic intent, terrorism has to be larger than terrorists. You could say the same thing about police and criminality: policing exists because criminality will rear its ugly head and neighbourhoods must be kept safe! Which might well be true. And if the existence of ongoing police surveillance operations were more widely known, The Wire could never have run for four seasons.

Unauthorized snooping on people harms anti-terrorism and other law enforcement/security efforts by alienating the public, and losing their trust and cooperation. Moreover, it creates a new problem: law-abiding people become vulnerable to having the illegally obtained information used against them for political purposes or even private vendettas. I believe I already referenced this sort of thing during the McCarthy era. More lives were destroyed during that time by our government than by supposed communists.

Well Enemy of The State was a very good movie, a smarter movie than usually is supposed because its "conspirators" are not "the state" they are simply a politically ambitious hack and the flunkies willing to follow his orders, it features the group coming together and then breaking apart under investigation afterwards in a way which I think was very well done.

I think its damaging on a huge number of ways that the operations have been conducted in such a way that their being revealed is such a problem, there's the squanderous use of public money, the opportunities for corruption you mention but I do believe there is an extent to which, as I've said before, that the terror threat is about proxy wars and has been fomented by national states in full knowledge that they will not bare the brunt of it or at least not the full brunt of it.

The Russians, I believe, did want to use "the war on terror" as their own personal "big cause #2" or "socialism #2", Bush co. ruined that for them, the whole narrative about seeking to stop western "idealism" from running amok has been a recent innovation, there's also a lot of plausible deniability about using proxies, its old too Machavelli said the greatest weapon to use against an enemy is another enemy. Given the "leaderless" nature of islamic fundamentalism too, its lack of real or strategic goals or any sort of political programme the whole "scene" is ripe for manipulation and control, who is to say that the first e-mail is from some mad preacher but between the it and the last two, vague, smash the infidel rants, there hasnt been one or two from a foreign spy network's hacker? Its something the terrorists themselves havent factored into their thinking that much, that they could be pawns and their entire command and control structure makes it easy for it to be so.

I figure perhaps some of the tactics for tracking could perhaps reveal whether or not this is the case or whether or not its even suspected, since I wrote the OP there's been more come to light about UK sources, at least, panicking about the fact the guy is in Russia now and not a "neutral" nation.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

Unauthorized snooping on people harms anti-terrorism and other law enforcement/security efforts by alienating the public, and losing their trust and cooperation. Moreover, it creates a new problem: law-abiding people become vulnerable to having the illegally obtained information used against them for political purposes or even private vendettas. I believe I already referenced this sort of thing during the McCarthy era. More lives were destroyed during that time by our government than by supposed communists.

Well Enemy of The State was a very good movie, a smarter movie than usually is supposed because its "conspirators" are not "the state" they are simply a politically ambitious hack and the flunkies willing to follow his orders, it features the group coming together and then breaking apart under investigation afterwards in a way which I think was very well done.

I think its damaging on a huge number of ways that the operations have been conducted in such a way that their being revealed is such a problem, there's the squanderous use of public money, the opportunities for corruption you mention but I do believe there is an extent to which, as I've said before, that the terror threat is about proxy wars and has been fomented by national states in full knowledge that they will not bare the brunt of it or at least not the full brunt of it.

The Russians, I believe, did want to use "the war on terror" as their own personal "big cause #2" or "socialism #2", Bush co. ruined that for them, the whole narrative about seeking to stop western "idealism" from running amok has been a recent innovation, there's also a lot of plausible deniability about using proxies, its old too Machavelli said the greatest weapon to use against an enemy is another enemy. Given the "leaderless" nature of islamic fundamentalism too, its lack of real or strategic goals or any sort of political programme the whole "scene" is ripe for manipulation and control, who is to say that the first e-mail is from some mad preacher but between the it and the last two, vague, smash the infidel rants, there hasnt been one or two from a foreign spy network's hacker? Its something the terrorists themselves havent factored into their thinking that much, that they could be pawns and their entire command and control structure makes it easy for it to be so.

I figure perhaps some of the tactics for tracking could perhaps reveal whether or not this is the case or whether or not its even suspected, since I wrote the OP there's been more come to light about UK sources, at least, panicking about the fact the guy is in Russia now and not a "neutral" nation.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

What I am saying is that either they did not use the specific word "terrorism" or that they didn't use it enough for it to stay. The lexical usage (or even the common usage) of the word is important here. Before 9/11, we didn't really use the word "terrorism" for the end all be all word for causing fear.

But I digress, I don't want to sidetrack the original topic

Well the brits were using it to describe the irish from pretty early days, then of course there was the association first with republicanism, then with socialism and anarchism, right up to and including in recent conservative histories of communism and the cold war which carry on the whole "sinisterism" of the right, ie that "left wing" is synomous with evil and all these ideologies are the same from Napoleon to Osama.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

I wouldn't say the monitoring of domestic calls and emails has done too much actual damage, those are the sorts of things I think it's fine he blew the whistle on.

The capability of the NSA to monitor the communications of foreign leaders is a big blow to our intelligence network. I don't think anyone suspected we really had that capability, and knowing the capabilities is a huge thing when it comes to espionage. It wasn't something that really needed to be mentioned, since anybody who knows anything about spying knows that there are no such things as friends and enemies, and it just weakened the integrity of our intelligence network. Now it will kick foreign security firms into paying extra attention.

Leaking that was uncalled for and treasonous, yes. That will directly impact national security.

What I am saying is that either they did not use the specific word "terrorism" or that they didn't use it enough for it to stay. The lexical usage (or even the common usage) of the word is important here. Before 9/11, we didn't really use the word "terrorism" for the end all be all word for causing fear.

But I digress, I don't want to sidetrack the original topic

No, before that time, the byword was "Soviets." This was later traded for "terrorists."